Talk:Samden Gyatso

Untitled

For the record Samden Gyatso was never the 'Spiritual Director' of the NKT as the beginning of this article states. He was only ever the Deputy. Can I suggest this should be corrected? Absence0 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

excised letter

(This section refers to the letter (allegedly) sent by GKG to Steven Wass):

Deleting contributions on the talk page made by others contravenes the rules of Wikipedia. Don't do it. Talk about it. Even making changes to your own edits is meant to be done using strike. (20040302 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi 20040302, I'm sorry, but allowing this sort of material to remain on the discussion page is defamation through the back door. You can post any kind of contentious and even libelous material here even if its inclusion in the main article is opposed by other editors. If this kind of material is not permissible in a biography of a living person, it shouldn't even be referred to on the discussion page. Also, I contend that this is not your contribution because you've simply taken it from a gossipy chat forum and it is therefore not a reliable or admissible source of information. This is an encylopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Sorry about that --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

In December 2006 Samden Gyatso disrobed and left the NKT. (the rest has been deleted because it's libelous) --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that this letter is not being disputed regarding it's existence, authorship, or content. It is also in the public domain - and pertinent to not only SG but also GKG and their relationship. WP biographies doesn't really cover this. Can you give a GOOD reason why it should be excised?

Peaceful, or anyone else, can you also please supply additional biographical information, please? Actually, regarding all of the 3 deputy directors of NKT to present, there appears to be a paucity of information regarding them - it is still easier to find more information about Neil Elliot than Kelsang Khyenrab.

"I've removed the contentious claims. According to wikipedia rules such things are not allowed in the biography of a living person" -- Would you like to clarify what the contention is here?

Also, although I appreciate your intention of removing anything that may be harmful to the individual - and I agree with that sentiment - I hope you agree with me that mere deletion isn't always the best approach.

Would you like to contribute to the article by offering some more biographical information regarding Samden Gyatso ? Also, would you like to give some account on why the NKT have effectively wiped his name from their 'planet' ? From the outside, it looks like a classical case of religious shunning, so it may be a good idea to provide some reasons for the actions, or to offer an explanation that is at least credible to the non-NKT population. Kind regards

Lastly, and this really applies to several editors of NKT articles, can you please use the discussion pages when making changes to an article - especially when deleting the work of others. You know - it's considered to be quite rude to destroy the contributions of others without even giving a reason. (20040302 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Dear 20040302, I apologise if you are upset with my changes of this article, but it says in Wikipedia rules that all contentious and poorly sourced material must be removed immediately from the biographies of living persons. Sorry, it's the rules. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not convinced that the letter is contentious. Just who contends it? I am under the impression that no-one denies it, in which case there is no contention. Secondly, as I have mentioned several times, can you actually OFFER material - rather than go round like some sort of deletion machine? It does you no credit. (20040302 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

I've removed contentious references in this article in accordance with wikipedia rules. For example, under Biographies of living persons it says:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The same article also says:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

I've also excised the letter on this page as this is simply trying to add contentious material 'through the back door' because it can't be added to the main article. Dear editors, please abide by wikipedia rules. Thank you --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Truthsayer - I'll let it be - on the basis that you start offering new material rather than just deleting other's work. You agree to this? (20040302 (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Also, you have been active on WP since 16 April 2008. I have been editing since 2004. I know the rules. Your activities suggest that you are a front man for the commnications office at NKT. You must be aware of WPs rules regarding the distinction between marketing and information. What is the truth? Truth is not a rewriting of history to suit your purposes. Samden Gyatso was a major player in the NKT for several years. He gave initiations to many students, as did Neil. That's a lot of Samaya just to throw away, don't you think? (20040302 (talk))

Dear 20040302, I'm just editing the article in accordance with Wikipedia rules, that's all. I don't want an argument with you although it does seem you have an axe to grind against the NKT Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, then answer the question. Who contends the letter? I am under the impression that no-one denies it, in which case there is no contention. Secondly, as I have mentioned several times, can you actually OFFER material - rather than go round like some sort of deletion machine? It does you no credit. (20040302 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Dear March 2, I'm sorry that I can't offer much more by way of biographical material for him. He played the role of Deputy Spiritual Director for many years, and as a result had a relatively high profile. Now he doesn't have that role anymore, and so has effectively disappeared from public view. I don't think there's any "shunning" going on. Things change, and people change. This was a very unfortunate change, but it's history now. I think the main point in excluding that quote is to keep with WP's policy on "do no harm" and not disclosing private information. I'm sure that this transition has not been easy for Samden, and I think it's unkind to post this kind of material. --Peaceful5 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. There have only been 3 Deputy Spiritual Directors in NKT - yet the NKT public materials seem to have excised 2 of them from all mention. Fascinating, in that they have all generated many Samaya bonds by giving initations - and therefore for many NKT students, they form an essential role as gurus and lineage holders. It must be terribly difficult to deal with the issue where your guru has effectively BEEN disappeared from public view. Samden Gyatso intended (as per his letter of resignation) to continue to serve the needs of the Dharma through the teachings of Je Rinpoche, but it is clear that GKG wasn't happy with that. I find this information fascinating, and very relevant to many individuals who wish to know the facts and details of the history and structure of the NKT. (20040302 (talk))

I just read the above discussion. I have to say that I agree with Truthsayer from the point of view that Wikipedia wouldn't really seem like an encyclopedia if every time some individual in a key position leaves after a short period, there had to be a personal biography of them. I think it makes sense if such individual was responsible for major development of doctrine or philosophy in that religion, but not each person who simply filled a position at a high level for a brief time. I would favor removing the page altogether. Eyesofcompassion (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eyes, and welcome to Wikipedia. There are plenty of precendents of people in high positions within organisations on Wikipedia - there is no exception here. Of course, I am far more likely to assume that your position is based on the fact that your emphasis and edits suggest that you and Truthsayer are both evidently pro-NKT individuals with no real interest in Wikipedia as a project - but rather wish to ensure that the NKT is represented in a manner which suits you, and so the removal of historic individuals who have been shunned by the NKT suits you very well. I recommend that you and your cohorts start editing pages beyond the scope of your own political interests, so that you may develop more experience with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia (20040302 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi 20040302, For your information, according to the NKT internal rules there will be new General Spiritual Director every four years. When that person's tenure has finished, they will return to their original Dharma Centre where they were Resident Teacher. Are you proposing that we have an article for each and every one of them? You're going to be writing a lot of articles that say..."They taught Dharma...um....the end". Would you have an article for every Chief Executive of a company? Not very interesting or informative reading --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)